Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 I subsequently told Neil Parille about the email from Joan, and then sent him a copy of it. [sentence deleted at Neil's request.]Stuttle,This is one of the reasons I stopped trusting you.Did you ever ask Barbara what she wanted deleted before sending private stuff of hers around to other people?You certainly didn't with my stuff back then.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Ellen,PARC has been out for over five years and I don't think Barbara has publicly commented on its claims more than a couple of time, although she could easily have added more information to refute Valliant's lies and distortions.When Barbara said she heard the RR story from Rand Valliant and others then accused her of lying. Would her enemies be persuaded by more evidence?-Neil ParilleMan, that surely must just about scrape the bottom of the barrel of disingenuity.You know perfectly well that Barbara wrote a long, detailed reply to PARC -- ultimately titled "It's a Dirty Job, But...," originally intended for being used in publication. You received a complete copy of that oeuvre. You also know that so did Heller, and that Heller referenced it numerous times in her biography.You further know that several of us, including you, were trying to find strong documentation that Ayn told the typewriter story.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I subsequently told Neil Parille about the email from Joan, and then sent him a copy of it. [sentence deleted at Neil's request.]Stuttle,This is one of the reasons I stopped trusting you.Did you ever ask Barbara what she wanted deleted before sending private stuff of hers around to other people?You certainly didn't with my stuff back then.MichaelThat's not as close to barrel bottom as Neil's post, but it's headed there.And actually I don't know that I sent posts of yours to other people (Neil is the only one to whom I sent the JMB note -- do you have any doubt Barbara would have shared it with him if she'd thought to?). Re your emails, I received one from someone else pertaining to the Pross incident.You haven't answered the question if Barbara suddenly remembered about that note from Joan. Another question: Did Barbara say if she ever got confirmation and permission to quote it from Joan, and if she ever asked Joan if Joan asked Allan, or alternately if Joan got back to Barbara saying that she'd asked?You see, what's puzzling about this is why there was never any follow through reported, despite Barbara's being reminded several times to follow through about it.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 (edited) Ellen,You write:You know perfectly well that Barbara wrote a long, detailed reply to PARC -- ultimately titled "It's a Dirty Job, But...," originally intended for being used in publication. You received a complete copy of that oeuvre. You also know that so did Heller, and that Heller referenced it numerous times in her biography.I did not receive a complete copy. I received a draft of part of the first chapter.My point is that Barbara decided not to say much publicly about PARC. Giving the completed version of IADJ to Heller (if was complete) is not a public refutation of PARC.Did I deny that I sought confirmation of the RR story? I've made inquiries about this and some other issues, generally without success (in getting responses).-Neil Parille Edited October 17, 2010 by Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Ellen,You write:You know perfectly well that Barbara wrote a long, detailed reply to PARC -- ultimately titled "It's a Dirty Job, But...," originally intended for being used in publication. You received a complete copy of that oeuvre. You also know that so did Heller, and that Heller referenced it numerous times in her biography.I did not receive a complete copy. I received a draft of part of the first chapter.I think that isn't what you said, but I'll check when I get time.My point is that Barbara decided not to say much publicly about PARC. Giving the completed version of IADJ to Heller (if was complete) is not a public refutation of PARC.My point is that you know that she was expecting there to be a public refutation including material from her. You are misrepresenting.Did I deny that I sought confirmation of the RR story? I've made inquiries about this and some other issues, generally without success (in getting responses).Neil, I was answering your implication that it was pointless to try to find confirmation, since BB's enemies wouldn't have believed it -- as if that would explain the lack of follow-up on the JMB note. Maybe BB simply forgot. It's odd for that to surface now, however, apropos of what?Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 Man... is all this confirming why I don't trust Ellen Stuttle.Memory lapses (I hope), outright false statements and other false accusations.I won't belabor what I claimed. I have the emails, from Stuttle and from others, and that's good enough for me. My value is whether to trust her or not--not seek audience approval or win some argument. I have enough information in my files to not trust, so I'll just leave it at that.On another matter, for the record, to my knowledge, Neil certainly did not receive a full copy of the material. But he did receive some material. (This does not mean I am against him or anything of that nature. On the contrary, I admire Neil.)It seems like when you let the PARC epistemology into your soul, it wreaks havoc with your memories and encourages paranoia. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 It is precisely because Ms. Stuttle has succumbed to "PARC epistemology" that I have put her posts on Ignore.This is the first time I have used the "Ignore" feature on this site. It is the first time that it even occurred to me to use it. It is most unlikely that I will ever put any other poster's name on my Ignore list.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuckle Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) I have evidence that one of the commenters in this thread is a Cylon. Edited October 18, 2010 by Starbuckle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I have evidence that one of the commenters in this thread is a Cylon.We are all Cylons now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 Do Cylons type?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 You guys obviously missed the finale of Battlestar Galactica. The series is available for streaming on Netflix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) Do Cylons type?MichaelYes. The human race on Earth is a Cylon-Caprican hybrid. The one successful interbreeding of human and Cylon was the mother of our our mitochondrial line. See the final of -Battlestar Galactica- Ba'al Chatzaf Edited October 18, 2010 by BaalChatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) Just to update people:1. ARWSM is out on paperback today. I ordered it from Amazon along with November's 100 Voices, so haven't got it yet and don't know what changes/additions have been made.2. Anne Heller recently visited the Rand Archives and will soon be posting on her blog what she found.http://annecheller.wordpress.com/-Neil Parille Edited October 19, 2010 by Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 1. ARWSM is out on paperback today. I ordered it from Amazon along with November's 100 Voices, so haven't got it yet and don't know what changes/additions have been made.Thanks for the reminder, Neil. I forget some of my Objectivish Minifacts, so can you remember if this means Jame Valliant is now able to say word one about it? I recall that he was very mysterious about why he could not comment on the hardback edition.It would give him something to do besides posting the ARI party line on McCaskey/Peikoff at Noodlefood, and will supplement his work at Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightJungle Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) Man... is all this confirming why I don't trust Ellen Stuttle.Memory lapses (I hope), outright false statements and other false accusations.I won't belabor what I claimed. I have the emails, from Stuttle and from others, and that's good enough for me. My value is whether to trust her or not--not seek audience approval or win some argument. I have enough information in my files to not trust, so I'll just leave it at that.On another matter, for the record, to my knowledge, Neil certainly did not receive a full copy of the material. But he did receive some material. (This does not mean I am against him or anything of that nature. On the contrary, I admire Neil.)It seems like when you let the PARC epistemology into your soul, it wreaks havoc with your memories and encourages paranoia. Michael Michael, I just wanted to know what PARC epistemology is. Sorry that my post didn't finish. Edited October 20, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightJungle Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Man... is all this confirming why I don't trust Ellen Stuttle.Memory lapses (I hope), outright false statements and other false accusations.I won't belabor what I claimed. I have the emails, from Stuttle and from others, and that's good enough for me. My value is whether to trust her or not--not seek audience approval or win some argument. I have enough information in my files to not trust, so I'll just leave it at that.On another matter, for the record, to my knowledge, Neil certainly did not receive a full copy of the material. But he did receive some material. (This does not mean I am against him or anything of that nature. On the contrary, I admire Neil.)It seems like when you let the PARC epistemology into your soul, it wreaks havoc with your memories and encourages paranoia. MichaelSorry to be so ignorant - but would you give a brief explanation of what "PARC Epistemology" is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Mary,I think that by "PARC epistemology," Michael means the mentality that was required to write such a book as The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, then defend it in public for 5 years and counting.The attitude that any distortion of one's sources, any fallacious or sophistical argumentation, any elaboration of explanations lacking in credibility, any expression of disrespect for one's readers, any gesture of servility is permissible, so long as it is being deployed in the service of a Great Cause. For Jim Valliant, so long as it is done to make Ayn Rand out to be perfect, and to make Nathaniel and Barbara Branden out to be Satanic.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now